Vaden v. Discover Bank
United States Supreme Court
556 U.S. 49, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Betty Vaden (defendant) was a credit cardholder with an affiliate of Discover Bank (Discover) (plaintiff). As part of the application, Vaden signed a cardholder agreement with Discover that contained an arbitration clause. Vaden had past-due charges, and Discover filed suit in Maryland state court, using only state-law claims, to recover the funds. Vaden answered and counterclaimed against Discover, stating that Discover’s fee policies and interest rates violated state law. Discover then petitioned a federal district court to compel arbitration of the counterclaims under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), citing its cardholder agreement. Discover claimed that the district court had jurisdiction over the dispute because federal banking laws preempted Vaden’s state-law counterclaims. Vaden conceded that the federal banking laws did preempt her state-law claims. The district court agreed and compelled arbitration, finding that a federal court had jurisdiction if the underlying dispute posed a federal question. Vaden appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which remanded the case and then affirmed upon a second appeal. Vaden appealed again to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ginsburg, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.